Summary
applying common law definition of an unincorporated association and finding it a "fair inference," under liberal construction of plaintiff's complaint, that chairman, treasurer, and manager of political campaign committee were "members" of the committee
Summary of this case from Karl Rove & Co. v. ThornburghOpinion
No. 306.
Submitted under sec. (Rule) 251.54 November 28, 1973. —
Decided January 4, 1974.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Marathon county: RONALD D. KEBERLE, Circuit Judge. Affirmed.
For the appellants the cause was submitted on the brief of Kelley, Weber Bolte, S.C., of Wausau.
For the respondents the cause was submitted on the brief of McGalloway, McGalloway Bosin, attorneys, and Robert B. Bosin of counsel, all of Fond du Lac.
Action on a contract. The individual defendants appeal from an order overruling their demurrer to the amended complaint on the ground the complaint failed to state a cause of action against them. The action was commenced to recover for advertising services rendered by the plaintiffs to the LeTendre for Congress Committee. The complaint alleged defendant Richard Bolte was chairman, defendant Richard Simono was treasurer, and defendant Rupert Kurtzweil, Jr., manager of the LeTendre for Congress Committee for the 1970 Seventh District Congressional campaign and all the defendants were such officers during the entire campaign. Bolte retained the plaintiffs on or about July 27, 1970, to conduct an advertising campaign for candidate Andre LeTendre on behalf of the committee.
The complaint alleged the terms of the contract of employment; that the plaintiffs provided the services requested of them by the committee; and that the plaintiffs submitted bills for their services and for money advanced in purchasing materials for the campaign. It was alleged that some of these items had been paid for by the committee; that the services rendered and the materials furnished by the plaintiffs were adapted for the purpose for which the committee was formed; and that these items were necessary disbursements to effectuate the work of the committee. The complaint further alleged that the committee has refused to pay the balance due and owing; that the committee has insufficient money to pay that balance; and that each of the individual defendants ratified the acts of the plaintiffs in furnishing the services and supplying the materials during the campaign.
Vader v. Ballou (1913), 151 Wis. 577, 139 N.W. 413, applied to a political campaign committee the rule that every member of a voluntary association is liable for the debts of the association incurred during his membership and contracted for the purpose of carrying out the objects for which the association was formed. The complaint in this case alleged the necessary facts to fall squarely within Vader v. Ballou if there is a sufficient allegation that the individual defendants were members of a voluntary association.
A voluntary association is defined as individuals who join together for a certain object and are called for convenience by a common name. Herman v. United Automobile, Aircraft Agricultural Implement Workers (1953), 264 Wis. 562, 59 N.W.2d 475. It is a fair inference that the committee was formed for the purpose of promoting the candidacy of Andre LeTendre during the 1970 congressional election campaign for the seventh district. Under a liberal construction, which we are obligated to give the complaint, we hold that alleging the fact the individual defendants hold positions in a voluntary political campaign committee usually associated with policy making is sufficient to permit an inference that they were members of the committee.
Defendants argue that modern campaign reporting requirements make the rule of Vader v. Ballou inapplicable today. We disagree. Campaign reporting laws are not designed to protect people doing business with campaign committees. Modern sophisticated business procedures have little to do with contracting debts with political campaign committees which must be regarded as voluntary associations. The members of such a campaign committee can limit their individual liability if they wish by inserting appropriate provisions in the contracts which the committee makes with third parties.
By the Court. — Order affirmed.